User talk:JasonGen

Archived discussions

Older discussions have been archived at User talk:JasonGen/Archive 1.

Greyhound racing

Hi JasonGen

I am happy not to renew editing past the point of your latest edit timed at 15:58. I think the article reflects as acceptable at this point. I am trying not to enter into an edit war. Please let me know if you disagree. Many thanks ApricotFoot (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC) Struck as comment by a confirmed sockpuppet of COI editor. JasonGen (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Copy of latest talk page edit

I provided a second citation (titled-Annual totalisator and attendance figures), you even thanked me for the second citation when I added it. If you want to dispute, then purchase the publications that are clearly stated and see for yourself. If you revert this a third time you will be WP:3RR. I have copied in @MWFwiki: who offered an opinion last time. ApricotFoot (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Struck as comment by a confirmed sockpuppet of COI editor. JasonGen (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@ApricotFoot Thanks for the comment. For clarity, I asked for specific details of this second third citation, as the citation given was insufficient to identify it. Those details were not provided and, weeks after that request, I consequently removed it per WP:BURDEN. I note that the second citation that you had previously provided in purported support of the figure did not mention anything even tangentially to the figure figures that you have repeatedly unilaterally added to the article. I further note that these inconsistent evolving figures are vastly different than those provided in the verifiable Royal Commission. JasonGen (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jillian Segal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JasonGen. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly misusing large language models and for accusing another editor of LLM misuse without evidence, as described in the AI noticeboard discussion.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  — Newslinger talk 08:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger This is incredibly disappointing to have my edits characterised this way, and I kindly ask that you reconsider this block. As stated in the AE request, I am extremely limited for time at the moment due to personal circumstances and am unable to entirely respond to everything. But I wanted to clear some things quickly as there are obvious mistakes.

1. "JasonGen accused another editor of LLM misuse without evidence"

I did provide evidence and @Chicdat was wrong in stating that I did not. Please read the comment by @Alansohn and compare it to the edits they referenced. It seemed very clear to me that this was generated by an LLM prompted without the context of these prior edits. How else did they misdescribe their own diffs and edits so clearly and so soon after making them? Regardless, it was framed as a question and not an accusation.

I'm not sure how else I could have dealt with that? It took considerable amounts of time reconciling the edits to determine Alansohn's post was entirely unrepresentative of their links. I considered collapsing it per WP:AITALK but wasn't sure of the protocol since I was involved in it.

2. "However, a closer examination shows that JasonGen was the one who was actually misusing LLMs (while making edits to reach the extended confirmed permission to fully access the WP:CT/A-I topic area)."

I was categorically not WP:GAMING and did not even know about WP:XC until shortly before reaching it. My reason for resuming editing on this account was solely greyhound racing. I have edited under IP accounts for years, usually correcting innocuous typos after stumbling upon them, but resumed using this account after I had some free time and wanted to help improve that sphere.

Since receiving extended confirmed status, I've made something like 35 edits in ARBPIA compared to approximately 130 in greyhound racing. My volume of editing in greyhound racing has dropped relatively as I have limited free time and enthusiasm for editing has somewhat impacted after discovering most of the articles in greyhound racing were written by a prolific sockpuppet, but it remains my primary interest.

3. " shows the insertion of Markdown"

Do you mean the asterisk around *Greyhound racing in New South Wales: First Report*? I write most of my edits in Obsidian as I edit across multiple devices and have lost large edits accidentally. It probably isn't an ideal program for this purpose since it's natively .md "file over app", but it's what I've used for basically everything for a very long time - and I trust it to sync correctly across devices.

Looking at the style of that citation, I very likely copied it across from the footnote of another article and the md asterisks were automatically added to it in Obsidian.

I then usually use Pandoc to convert to Mediawiki when I'm at my PC or have access to my Linux server, or manually fix shorter comments. This isn't perfect, as evidenced by my use of curly quotes in my early edits (which I've gone back to try to fix a lot of after reading MOS:").

4. " references a nonexistent URL"

This was not hallucinated nor LLM generated. It was a real publication that's since been deleted. The specific URL doesn't appear to have been archived, as I wouldn't expect every page on an obscure racing site to be, but you can see the section of the site for greyhound racing articles was crawled on 9 March 2026 .

If you right click the relevant article, titled "GBGB chairman optimistic for year ahead", then click copy link, it takes you to this . That's exactly the link I provided.

Additionally, without checking the actual article history, it seems I added this to a talk page and not a mainspace article? I've always avoided using pro or anti racing sites as I don't believe they're reliable either way. This was only used in the context of a disagreement about the 100th vs 101st year.

5. " is a wall of text divided into numbered sections"

This was 100% written entirely by myself. I remember this specifically because I exerted considerable effort trying to figure out how to use # (to generate numbering) without it restarting at 1 after formatting. I don't know if it's possible (hence doing it again here) but I figured the way I posted was the easiest to make things as clear as possible without confusing separate issues. It's a large amount of text but I was genuinely trying to work with @ApricotFoot to resolve the issues.

6. " has random boldface."

It isn't random boldface. I bolded the headings and the relevant policies. It now know it isn't correct but it was 7 days after I started editing again. I made many mistakes in my early edits, as I'm sure most people do.

7. "The formatting of some of JasonGen's comments indicates that they have been copied and pasted into Wikipedia, including in Talk:Greyhound racing and Talk:Greyhound Racing Victoria, a large part of which consists of the LLM talking to nobody in particular."

Which formatting? Greyhound racing is a niche area and most of my talk page posts in that sphere are me talking to myself (e.g. ). Does that mean I shouldn't have explained them, or tried to engage in discussion to avoid repeated edit warring? As stated, most of my early edits were in the context of being constantly reverted by @Racingmanager sockpuppets. I was trying my best to deal with a very experienced editor who I now understand clearly wasn't following policies like WP:BURDEN. JasonGen (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, it appears most, if not all. of the diffs provided were prior to the expansion of WP:NEWLLM on 20 March 2026. Can you please advise the specific policy basis on which I've been indefinitely blocked? JasonGen (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Your #1, which references me, is not actually a quote from me, it appears to be paraphrasing Newslinger. What I actually said was Twice accusing Alansohn of AI use, without citing any AI signs as evidence. Minor inaccuracies in someone's description of events are never a reason to accuse anyone of AI use. You can correct the mistakes, but you need to AGF. For an accusation of AI use to be anything more than a baseless aspersion, you need to cite actual AI signs, which you did not. Also, Regardless, it was framed as a question and not an accusation is inaccurate. I suggest you review WP:LLM and WP:AITALK, if not an explicit accusation of AI use, strongly implies it. You've stated that my statement contains a number of material inaccuracies and mischaracterisations that require detailed responses. Is this the only one of those, or are there others? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi JasonGen, your response here overlooked your LLM-generated edit summaries ( ). You cited the nonexistent policy WP:SSECTION in and (the latter of which had LLM-generated boldface), the nonexistent policy WP:CITEPLACEMENT in , and the article title policy WP:PRECISION that was irrelevant to your edit in . I can believe that you used Pandoc to convert Markdown to wikitext in some of your edits, which you then posted-on-wiki, but I am completely unconvinced that many of the comments you posted in your first 500 edits were generated by anything other than an LLM prior to your converting/posting them.

In Alansohn's comment, his mistake about the timing of the source citation, which he apologized to you for, shows that he had a faulty argument in the content dispute, but that by itself is not evidence of LLM misuse. The second part of his comment, "Per your request, I reviewed both sources and tried to summarize the major issue cited in the titles...", refers to Special:Diff/1363162126, in which he cited an updated version of the South China Morning Post article to reference its coverage of Israel's response that was absent from the originally published article. Your response ("No, you didn't") missed the point of that edit and did not identify a sign of LLM misuse in his comment.

In response to Alansohn's comment and apology, you posted a belligerent wall of text that included "Second, noting that you did not address a number of concerns in my previous comment, including the apparent misrepresentation of my (and your) edits, is there a reason why this shouldn't be collapsed per WP:AITALK? Was an LLM used to generate any of these comments? The substantial and as yet unexplained differences in the diffs presented compared to your descriptions of them seem to me to indicate LLM-generated content", which is absolutely an accusation of LLM misuse. The first part of your comment ("If this pattern of repeated unwanted contact continues, I will raise it at the appropriate noticeboard" in response to him pinging you in his apology after having answered your question without hearing back from you in three days) was also incivil.

Failing to disclose LLM misuse when the issue is raised is disruptive, and your LLM misuse combined with your accusing Alansohn of LLM misuse constitute "Dishonest and gaming behaviors" as specified in WP:NOTHERE. I am not going to unblock you, but feel free to request an unblock using the instructions in the block notice if you would like a second opinion. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy update on List of greyhound racing in South Australia and elsewhere

As a courtesy, this is to let you know that the following articles have been moved to draft space, as an alternative to LLMPROD:

• draft: List of greyhound racing venues in South Australia
• draft: List of greyhound racing venues in Tasmania
• draft: List of greyhound racing venues in Victoria
• draft: List of greyhound racing venues in Western Australia
• draft: List of greyhound racing venues in Queensland
• draft: List of greyhound racing venues in New South Wales

Kindly note the requirements of WP:LLMPRVOBJ - these drafts need to be checked by an editor against policies and guidelines before moving them to mainspace, or via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Drafts will remain available for six months without changes, thereafter they can usually be reinstated via WP:REFUND. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

The following contentious topic warning now applies to you:

You are warned for battleground conduct within the WP:CT/A-I (the Arab–Israeli conflict) contentious topic.

You have been warned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This warning is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This warning has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If your conduct continues to fall short of the expectations of editors in a contentious topic, you may be subject to a contentious topic restriction such as a block.

You may appeal this warning using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this warning, it remains current until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. — Newslinger talk 01:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)